|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 724 Records
-
2007 (4) TMI 783
... ...
... ... ..... der dated 10th April 2006 passed on I.A. moved by Deepak Agarwal has not adjudicated or expressed any opinion on any other aspects of these three writ petitions except that the land in question is not a forest land nor the Apex Court has observed anything about the bona fides and credentials of the petitioners herein, therefore, in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April 2006 passed in Godavarman's case AIR 2006 SC 1774, these writ petitions are not liable to be dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the cases. 20. In the result, reference is answered in negative. Registry is directed to place the matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice in view of the Apex Court's order dated 2-2-2007 passed on Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 54/2007 in which it has been directed that the interest of justice would be served if the High Court disposes of the matters within six weeks from today and the period of six weeks already expired on 16-3-2007.
-
2007 (4) TMI 782
... ...
... ... ..... different Sections of the IPC. Though this Court earlier indicated that the Bureau had no authority to investigate in respect of such serious offences under the IPC but, the Bureau had the authority to investigate in respect of alleged offence described in different Sub-sections of Section 88 of the Sales Tax Act. This Court also reserves its opinion in respect of scope of further investigation by the Bureau or fresh efficacious investigation by regular police authorities to reveal the truth and brought to light the manner in which alleged offence was committed or who was or were responsible behind such incident. In view of the discussion made above, the revisional application is partly allowed and disposed of in the light of the observations made above. 28. Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat and also a copy to the learned ACJM, Barrackpore for information and necessary action.
-
2007 (4) TMI 781
... ...
... ... ..... amount may be refunded to the petitioner. Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ. The points of determination have been mentioned in the order of Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J. We agree on point Nos. one and two. There is difference of opinion amongst us so for as question number three is concerned. One of us (Honble Yatindra Singh, J) has held that scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the court is not covered by article 23 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act whereas other one (Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.) has held that it is covered by article 23 Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act. The papers of these writ petitions may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for nominating the third Judge. In view of the fact that there is difference of opinion amongst us and the matter is to be placed before the third Judge, it will not be necessary for the petitioners to appear before the authority on 14.5.2007. The interim order is extended till further order of the court.
-
2007 (4) TMI 780
... ...
... ... ..... etitioner. 5. When once a cheque is in the hands of the complainant, a presumption under Section 139 of NI Act can be drawn. Section 139 of the Act reads as follows 139. Presumption in favour of holder - It shall be presumed , unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 6. According to this section, there is a presumption that the cheque is issued for discharge of the legally enforceable debt. When once that presumption is available, it is for the petitioner to rebut the said presumption by adducing such evidence to show that under so and so circumstances, the cheques went to the hands of the complainants. It is a question of fact to be decided during the course of trial of the cases and at this stage the proceedings are not liable to be quashed against the petitioner in the said cases, Hence, the criminal petitions are dismissed,
-
2007 (4) TMI 779
... ...
... ... ..... id, the order dated 29th July 2004 which has given rise to Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 19332 of 2005 is set aside and we direct the Corporation to constitute an Arbitration Board in terms of Clause 29 within a period of three months from this date, provided the respondent furnishes security in terms of the table provided in Clause 29(d) of the contract, as determined by the Corporation within a period of six weeks from this date. We, however, make it clear that in view of the stand taken by the Corporation, as noted herein earlier, the Arbitration Board shall commence their proceedings from the stage the arbitrator appointed by the High Court had already reached. Since we have set aside the order dated 29th July 2004, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave petition No. 19333 of 2005 filed against the order dated 8th April, 2005 has become infructuous. 14. The Appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 778
... ...
... ... ..... have expressed any opinion on correctness on genuineness of the Will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of respondent No. 5. It was stated at the Bar that against dismissal of the suit by the trial Court on the ground of limitation, an appeal is filed by the appellants which is pending before the High Court of Delhi. As and when the said appeal will be taken up for hearing, it will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by observations made by us in this judgment. We may also make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the entitlement of compensation said to have been awarded in land acquisition proceedings. All contentions of all parties are kept open and all questions will be decided in appropriate proceedings by Competent Authorities or Courts without being inhibited by the present decision. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 777
... ...
... ... ..... er Section 19 of the Act, 1994. Thus, circumstances, in which Division Bench observed in latter judgment in Bheru Singh Rathore v. State (supra), did not relate to a situation of pre-disqualification in the light of observations made herein above. I am, therefore, of the considered view that judgment rendered by Division Bench in Mohan Lal v. State (supra) has rightly examined and answered the question raised, with which I do concur. 29. Only conclusion which emerges, is that pre-election disqualifications as provided Under Section 19 of Act, 1994 can always be examined by competent authority Under Section 39(2) of Act, 1994 and as regards election disputes, a candidate at the election can always question by way of election petition as provided Under Section 43 of Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of Election rules which includes pre-election disqualifications also as one of grounds for questioning election of an elected candidate. The referred question stands answered accordingly.
-
2007 (4) TMI 776
... ...
... ... ..... the property. Plaintiff is in lawful possession of the property. The unilateral cancellation deed has no legal effect. The suit is not barred by time. Suit is not hit by Section 125 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Court fee paid is sufficient and it rightly granted the declaration that the cancellation deed dated 5.6.1981 brought into existence by the defendant unilaterally purported to cancel the sale deed dated 11.3.1974 executed by it in favour of C. Janardhana Rao is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and his predecessor in title and it rightly granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court is in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 775
... ...
... ... ..... , It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial. 12. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice, as referred to above, virtually amounts to the regular trial pointing out the deficiency and reliability/credibility of prosecution evidence. Such findings recorded at the stage of consideration of bail, in our view, cannot be allowed to sustain. 13. For the reasons aforestated, the order of the learned Chief Justice granting the bail is not sustainable in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The bail bonds and sureties of the respondent No. 3 stand cancelled. He is directed to be taken back to the custody forthwith. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 14. We clarify that we are not making any observations on the merit of the case or on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
-
2007 (4) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... ena,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. P.Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr.Adv., Mr. S.S.Aristotle, Adv.,Mr. P. Narasimhan, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appeal admitted.
-
2007 (4) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... t had suppressed the value of the services provided by them in order to evade the service tax. On perusal of the certificate on which the department relies and as filed along with this appeal it is noticed that all these certificates were given by MSEB and Central Railway in the month of February, 2006. It is to be noticed that the adjudicating order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 24-3-2005 and by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-11-2005. Suffice to say, it is well settled law, that an appeal, if any, has to be on the same set of documents which were on record at the time of adjudication. It is not open for the Revenue to prefer appeal on the strength of fresh evidence, which were collected subsequent to the adjudication order and after the first appellate proceedings. 4. On this ground itself the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed without going into any other grounds. (Pronounced and Dictated in Court on 3-4-2007)
-
2007 (4) TMI 772
... ...
... ... ..... quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, since it is only a curable defect. Therefore, the respondent/complainant shall file an affidavit setting out reasons for the delay in filing the complaint and the trial court, thereafter shall provide opportunity to the petitioners/accused to raise their defence, by way of filing counter and if the court satisfies that there are adequate and cogent reasons to condone the delay, the same can be decided on merits. As it is a curable defect, I am of the considered view that the complaints cannot be quashed, as prayed for by the petitioners. 19. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all their defence that are available as per law before the trial court. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose the case according to law, as early as possible.
-
2007 (4) TMI 771
... ...
... ... ..... the receipt of the notice under Ex.P-5 dated 31.8.2001. (d) The petitioner has not followed the mode of public notice as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act by giving notice to the Registrar's of Firms under Section 63 of the Act and by publication in the official gazette. (e) Furthermore, the petitioner, who ought to have raised all these objections at the time of trial, failed to do so. The above factors will clearly show that the petitioner cannot escape liability for the claim made against him. 14. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to hold that the order of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras made in E.A. No. 1050 of 2005 in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 in O.S. No. 1892 of 2002 dated 1.8.2005 does not suffer any illegality or infirmity and hence, the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 15013 of 2005 is closed. However, there will no order as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 770
... ...
... ... ..... a case for regularization without there being employee-employer relationship. As noted above the concept of regularization is clearly linked with Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if in a case the fact situation is covered by what is stated in para 45 of the Uma Devi's case (supra), the Industrial Adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the observations made by this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) about the regularization. 7. On facts it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that respondent No. 2 himself admitted that he never worked as a Pump Operator, but was engaged as daily labourer on daily wage basis. He also did not possess requisite qualification. Looked at from any angle, the direction for regularization, as given, could not have been given in view of what has been stated in Uma Devi's case (supra). 8. The appeal is bound to succeed and is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 769
... ...
... ... ..... ained under Section 401(4) Cr. P.C. 17. In view of the above discussions the residue is that impugned order dated 25.4.2005 passed by lower revisional court Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar cannot be sustained in law as it has been passed in the teeth of the Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. read with Section 401(4) Cr. P.C.. Lower Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order dated 5.2.2004 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 256(1) Cr. P.C. 18. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 25.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Muzaffarnager in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2004, Sanjay Kumar Dixit v. Sugandha Steel and Ors. is de horse the law and cannot be sustained. 19. This revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Muzaffarnager in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2004, Sanjay Kumar Dixit v. Sugandha Steel and Ors. is hereby quashed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 768
Validity of Bail granted already in offences u/s 324, 352 and 506 IPC - subsequently Offence converted into one u/s 304 IPC - Special leave filed against the Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking a direction to the CJM, to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one u/s 304 IPC - HELD THAT:- Accused respondents could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one u/s 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in order to circumvent the procedure whereunder they would have been required to surrender as the bail application could be entertained and heard only if the accused were in custody.
It is important to note that no order adverse to the accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence u/s 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one u/s 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the accused respondents, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside.
learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge u/s 302 IPC has been framed against the accused respondents by the trial court and some subsequent orders were passed by the High Court by which the accused were ordered to remain on bail for the offence u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bounds only on the ground that they were on bail in the offence u/s 304 IPC. These orders also deserve to be set aside on the same ground.
Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the High Court and all other subsequent orders whereby the accused respondents were directed to remain on bail for the offence u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC on furnishing fresh sureties and bail bonds are set aside. The accused respondents shall be taken into custody forthwith. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the accused respondents to apply for bail for the offences for which they are charged before the appropriate Court and in accordance with law.
-
2007 (4) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... as a bone fide mistake, and accordingly, under such circumstances, imposition of penalty was not warranted. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in the matter of imposition of penalty on the Company, all the authorities who have passed the orders have not acted in accordance with law and exercise their discretion in a manner which cannot be approved. Accordingly, keeping in view the principles which govern the imposition of penalty as indicated hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the assessing authority, Assistant Commissioner, Annexure P/5 dated 1st September, 2002, 29th July, 2003 (Annexure P/8), and the revisional authority, Additional Commissioner dated 25th August, 2004 as contained in Annexure P/9 are quashed. Authorities concerned are directed to refund the amount of penalty deposited by the Company. Petition stands allowed and disposed of without any order so as to cost.
-
2007 (4) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... items imported by the Assessee are exempted from payment of customs duty and, therefore, the issue has become academic. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee-Respondent, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the question of law open. No costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... d sales. 11. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned here that in the State evasion of the tax are going on in a planned manner by the various dealers. These evasions can be checked by the regular, fair and honest checking by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad. It is seen that the checking by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad at a place where there is no check post or other places are not regular fair and honest and this results in large scale of evasion of tax. To check the evasion of tax, it is necessary to make the regular checking, Commissioner should take more effective measures in this regard and keep check on their officers. 12. In the result, revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The copy of the three bills books are being handed over to the learned Standing Counsel with the direction to hand over the same to the applicant after keeping the photocopies of the three bills in the assessment records duly signed by the applicant and concerned officer.
-
2007 (4) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... the post of Headmaster must be held to have fallen vacant again on her retirement which would unable the authorities to consider his case for promotion thereto. We are not in a position to persuade ourselves to accept the said contention. Vacancy arose in 1994. The management of the school, the State Government as also different benches of the High Court in various litigations considered only that aspect of the matter, namely, Respondent No. 6 had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and had, therefore, been appointed. Appellant was nowhere in the picture at the relevant time. At his instance, the court cannot embark upon a larger question which had not been raised for its consideration directly. What cannot be done directly, it is well- settled, cannot be done indirectly. For the reasons aforementioned, there in the no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly with costs payable by the Appellant to Respondent No. 6. Counsel's fee is assessed at ₹ 10,000/-.
........
|
